Actually I think the more interesting thing about papal “infallibility” is when two or more popes make contradictory statements, say on whether or not Jews are responsible for killing Jesus or evolution. Obviously one pope or the other has to be wrong when that happens. How do you decide which one is right? Is it always the latest one? If any pope CAN be wrong, then no pope is infallible. I wonder how Catholics work that out?

Actually I think the more interesting thing about papal “infallibility” is when two or more popes make contradictory statements, say on whether or not Jews are responsible for killing Jesus or evolution. Obviously one pope or the other has to be wrong when that happens. How do you decide which one is right? Is it always the latest one? If any pope CAN be wrong, then no pope is infallible. I wonder how Catholics work that out?

Our brains have evolved the hard wiring to accept what authority figures tell it.
If a mother tells child to avoid certain animals, its chances of survival are higher than a child that ignores her advise.
It appears that some humans are more likely to become stuck on the accepting side of the spectrum.
Their brains are less stressed when the blank spots are filled in with certainties.
In order for the spiritual pap that the Catholics have accumulated to be palatable, their leader would have to be seen as infallible.

Well, yes, I am aware of the evolutionary aspect of it. But the idea of multiple popes making contradictory statements so therefore one must be wrong is not an argument I’ve ever seen brought up as a challenge to papal authority, though I may not have just read enough. I guess the better question is how would a Catholic work it out once you brought it to his or her attention? Other than the normal apologetics, I mean.

Well, yes, I am aware of the evolutionary aspect of it. But the idea of multiple popes making contradictory statements so therefore one must be wrong is not an argument I’ve ever seen brought up as a challenge to papal authority, though I may not have just read enough. I guess the better question is how would a Catholic work it out once you brought it to his or her attention? Other than the normal apologetics, I mean.

Logic is not a factor in any spiritual belief.
It seems that true-believers are drawn to and cultivated only within the most illogical speculations that the human mind can invent.
In its need to soothe itself the brain is quite comfortable in accepting the blind spots necessary to have access to a softer albeit illusory world.
It also appears that the belief structure must be beyond belief to be believable.
Seen with even a tiny bit of objectivity all religions are laughable.
Well…....except their desire to kill each other.